I've been pretty busy of late over on the RM-Bible list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rm-bible/

The hot button issue of the day has been Preterism, and Don Preston of the
Ardmore church in Oklahoma is one of its leading promoters.

One of my more recent adversaries in the continuing public debate over
young-earth creation-science has been Terry W. Benton of the non-institutional
perspective and the Pine Lane church,

http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com .

He's just posted a note to his anti-Goldsmith YAHOO! discussion list which
provides the link to his debate with Don Preston on the issue of the law and the
obligation thereto.  That issue is fundamental to the Preterist theology.

It might be of interest to some.  Here are the links:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkingTinroad6g-isms/files/Preston-Benton%20Deb\
ate%20on%20the%20Law.doc

or you might try:

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/sEFLSkDdyykpmHel-0Ao0KQuR6e30I2YMvN99MgUiBPNnI1iAuH\
xjIueLsQA5HPxKqMwlEPUs52GxvnINbI79kXosLhab7Y/Preston-Benton%20Debate%20on%20the%\
20Law.doc

Even if you you don't care for the debate, knowing y'all like visuals, you can
see what the guys look like.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have been spending some time on the RM-Bible list discussing "Preterism",

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rm-bible/ .

One promoter provided a link to the "Preterist Central" homepage as a resource
to understanding "Preterism":

http://www.preteristcentral.com .

It does appear to be a pretty good resource.

Listed on the home page is a link to their attack on "old earth creationism":

http://www.preteristcentral.com/OEC-page.htm

Those interested in that issue might want to browse their material and provide
comment here.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Howard Friedman has posted on his blog information about the Ave Maria Law
School legal issue.

In as much as it relates to my hobby regarding IRC 107/70-549, I submitted
comments which were approved and posted and then replied to by Patrick.

I have since submitted a response to Patrick's comments which are awaiting
approval before posting.

Some may want to follow along and see where the discussion might lead.

The link is:

http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/06/ave-maria-law-school-claims-ministeri\
al.html

Sincerely,
Robert Baty









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

(Following is my reply to Patrick that is awaiting approval and posting.-RLBaty)


Patrick,

Your comments are further testimony as to why the story needs to be told!

Many religious groups today consider all members to be "ministers", so it is a
small matter to have them so recognized (i.e., ordained) by their respective
churches.

The basketball minister example is a real life case, which was brought before
the U.S. Tax Court and conceded by the IRS prior to trial; because of the ruling
Bush and Burleson got out of the IRS.

That's Revenue Ruling 70-549; the story of which has yet to be told.

The basketball minister, brought in from secular coaching, and being a member of
the church and a nice guy, got his church letter and even registered at the
court house as a minister.

He was in, as are all similarly situated employees at such private schools as
were mentioned.

Being a minister is fine with me.  That's not the problem.

The problem is that these private schools are NOT "integral agencies of the
church"; not legally, not factually, not theologically according to their
founding principles and public proclamations.

That being the case, being paid to coach basketball and also being a minister
should not get the guy a tax free ticket.

But it does!

Why!

Because 70-549 is what is contrary to the facts, the law and the theology.

It is time that story is told and brought into the public square for informed
discussion and, preferably, ACTION!

Robert Baty



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Oops!

I didn't mean to send that to the Maury_and_Baty list but simply to my personal
mailbox.

Oh well!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty



-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:36 AM
To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [M & B] Friedman blog comments!

(Following is my reply to Patrick that is awaiting approval and posting.-RLBaty)


Patrick,

Your comments are further testimony as to why the story needs to be told!

Many religious groups today consider all members to be "ministers", so it is a
small matter to have them so recognized (i.e., ordained) by their respective
churches.

The basketball minister example is a real life case, which was brought before
the U.S. Tax Court and conceded by the IRS prior to trial; because of the ruling
Bush and Burleson got out of the IRS.

That's Revenue Ruling 70-549; the story of which has yet to be told.

The basketball minister, brought in from secular coaching, and being a member of
the church and a nice guy, got his church letter and even registered at the
court house as a minister.

He was in, as are all similarly situated employees at such private schools as
were mentioned.

Being a minister is fine with me.  That's not the problem.

The problem is that these private schools are NOT "integral agencies of the
church"; not legally, not factually, not theologically according to their
founding principles and public proclamations.

That being the case, being paid to coach basketball and also being a minister
should not get the guy a tax free ticket.

But it does!

Why!

Because 70-549 is what is contrary to the facts, the law and the theology.

It is time that story is told and brought into the public square for informed
discussion and, preferably, ACTION!

Robert Baty



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Todd S. Greene
Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 11:10 AM

Subject: [coCBanned] Typical fundamentalist word game: Atheism is a "religion"
Excerpt from:

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/06/atheism-is-not-a-religion.html

[link may be line-wrapped]

============================

Atheism is Not a Religion
(Blog: Skeptico, 6/30/2009)

This is a refrain I'm hearing a lot from religious apologists - atheism is a
religion.

Also its equally fallacious siblings, science is a religion and evolution is a
religion.

It's a sign of their desperation that the best argument they have is not that
atheism is wrong, or that god does exist (supported by evidence of course), but
that atheism is a religion too.

A strange argument for a religious person to make on the face of it.

Is it supposed to strengthen the atheist's position or weaken the theist's one?

In reality it's a sign they have run out of arguments.

Still, this argument is widely made, and so it needs to be addressed.

Atheism (and here I mean the so-called "weak atheism" that does not claim proof
that god does not exist), is just the lack of god-belief - nothing more and
nothing less.

And as someone once said, if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a
hobby.

That really ought to end the discussion right there.

Clearly, a mere lack of belief in something cannot be a religion.

In addition, atheism has no sacred texts, no tenets, no ceremonies.

Even theists making this argument must know all that.

So they must have something else in mind when they trot this one out, but what
is it?

What are they really thinking?

[...]

---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Todd S. Greene
Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 11:36 AM

Subject: Proof that ghosts and demons exist and can possess people!

Proof that ghosts and demons exist and can possess people

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSg-cNDpdbs

Religious belief is so scientific.

Chuckling,
Todd Greene

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Following are the presently posted comments from the Friedman blog (the link to
which is in the previous message copied following my name below):

5 comments:

------------------------------------

Robert Baty said...

This reminds me of a related, mostly untold story, how certain private schools
like Pepperdine, Abilene Christian, et al, have been careful to arrange
themselves to be independent, educational institutions except for when it comes
to wanting to pay their employees in tax free dollars. Bush and Burleson
arranged for that in compelling the IRS to recognize such schools as "integral
agencies of the church". That cinched it. Employees (e.g., basketball coaches,
math teachers, ad nauseum) now register as "ministers" and are paid in income
tax free dollars a "ministerial housing allowance" and can also opt out of
paying Social Security taxes.

But don't tell anybody...it's a secret!

Someday, however, maybe the story will be told!

Tue Jun 30, 11:29:00 AM EDT

---------------------------------------------

Patrick said...

You don't understand and are misstating the law of the ministerial housing
allowance and exception from Social Security. These exceptions are not as broad
as the "ministerial exception" for employment law purposes, though even that is
not as broad as the defendants are asserting here. The housing exception is
quite specifically applied only to licensed or ordained ministers who perform
sacerdotal functions. If schools are treating their basketball coaches and math
teachers in this manner, it is contrary to the law, not because of it. Perhaps
"it's a secret" because it's illegal. Licensed or ordained ministers may exempt
themselves from Social Security taxes (it isn't automatic) but then they don't
get the benefits either.

Tue Jun 30, 05:38:00 PM EDT

-------------------------------------------

Robert Baty said...

Patrick,

Your comments are further testimony as to why the story needs to be told!

Many religious groups today consider all members to be "ministers", so it is a
small matter to have them so recognized (i.e., ordained) by their respective
churches.

The basketball minister example is a real life case, which was brought before
the U.S. Tax Court and conceded by the IRS prior to trial; because of the ruling
Bush and Burleson got out of the IRS.

That's Revenue Ruling 70-549; the story of which has yet to be told.

The basketball minister, brought in from secular coaching, and being a member of
the church and a nice guy, got his church letter and even registered at the
court house as a minister.

He was in, as are all similarly situated employees at such private schools as
were mentioned.

Being a minister is fine with me. That's not the problem.

The problem is that these private schools are NOT "integral agencies of the
church"; not legally, not factually, not theologically according to their
founding principles and public proclamations.

That being the case, being paid to coach basketball and also being a minister
should not get the guy a tax free ticket.

But it does!

Why!

Because 70-549 is what is contrary to the facts, the law and the theology.

It is time that story is told and brought into the public square for informed
discussion and, preferably, ACTION!

Wed Jul 01, 10:20:00 AM EDT

------------------------------------------

Bob Ritter said...

Patrick, when you state that Robert is "misstating the law of the ministerial
housing allowance," it all depends upon the meaning of "the law." (Thanks to
Bill Clinton for teaching us to parse words.)

The parsonage allowance under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 107(2) has been granted to the
so-called ministers that Robert referred to (most likely under political
pressure). Sec. 107 ("the law") doesn't require "ministers of the gospel" to
perform sacerdotal functions, however IRS regs do. But here's the kicker. The
First Amendment prohibits laws "respecting an establishment of religion" --
which Sec. 107 clearly violates.

A group of concerned Americans (including one or more persons who have posted a
comment here) are in the final stages of drafting a complaint to challenge Sec.
107 in due course.

Wed Jul 01, 10:48:00 AM EDT

--------------------------------------------

Anonymous said...

Section 1.1402(c)-5(b)(2)(iv) of the tax regulations provides that if a minister
is performing service for an organization which is operated as an integral
agency of a religious organization under the authority of a religious body
constituting a church or church denomination, then ALL SERVICE performed by the
minister in the control, conduct, and maintenance of such organization is in the
exercise of his ministry. See in this regard Rev. Rul. 70-549, 1970-2 C.B. 16,
plus the numerous private rulings issued to specific taxpayers. The issue often
arises with respect to ministers who serve as faculty members at Christian
colleges. If the faculty member is an ordained minister and if the church
college is an integral agency of a religious organization under the authority of
a religious body constituting a church or church denomination, then ALL of the
faculty member?s services are ?in the exercise of his ministry.? As a result,
the minister can be teaching math or coaching basketball and he will in THAT
capacity be eligible to receive a tax-exempt housing allowance under section 107
of the Internal Revenue Code--the math teacher, basketball coach, etc. is NOT
required to perform conventional sacerdotal functions, such as the conduct of
worship or the administration of the Lord?s Supper or other sacraments.

The IRS has struggled with the language used in is own regulations and must make
fine distinctions between the Christian colleges that are operated under the
authority of a denomination and those that are not. This is just the sort of
inquiry into matters of church governance that the courts are forbidden to
engage in.

Wed Jul 01, 11:46:00 AM EDT

-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

Sincerely,
Robert Baty


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:29 AM
To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [M & B] 70-549, Ave Maria & Howard Friedman!

Howard Friedman has posted on his blog information about the Ave Maria Law
School legal issue.

In as much as it relates to my hobby regarding IRC 107/70-549, I submitted
comments which were approved and posted and then replied to by Patrick.

I have since submitted a response to Patrick's comments which are awaiting
approval before posting.

Some may want to follow along and see where the discussion might lead.

The link is:

http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/06/ave-maria-law-school-claims-ministeri\
al.html

Sincerely,
Robert Baty









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here are some interesting statistics w/comments from a Duke survey:

http://oneinjesus.info/2009/06/30/the-national-congregations-study-and-churches-\
of-christ-part-1/

http://oneinjesus.info/2009/07/01/the-national-congregations-study-and-churches-\
of-christ-part-2/

Sincerely,
Robert Baty



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What, nobody paid serious attention to those comments?

OK, let's try this:

Go to the following website where the comments are found:

http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/06/ave-maria-law-school-claims-ministeri\
al.html

Pay close attention to the comments of Bob Ritter who concludes with:

> A group of concerned Americans
> (including one or more persons
> who have posted a comment
> here) are in the final stages of
> drafting a complaint to challenge
> Sec. 107 in due course.

On the website referenced, you can click on Bob Ritter's name and find out what
he's all about; it links you to the following website:

http://www.americanhumanist.org/

You can contact Bob Ritter, shown as the legal coordinator, via that website.

Neat, huh?

Even if you don't want to comment here, you might want to send Bob your comments
to let him know what you think about what he is up to.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

-----------------Previous Message----------

To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
From: Robert Baty
Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 3:14 PM

Subject: Re: 70-549, Ave Maria & Howard Friedman!

Following are the presently posted comments from the Friedman blog (the link to
which is in the previous message copied following my name below):

5 comments:

-----------------

Robert Baty said...

This reminds me of a related, mostly untold story, how certain private schools
like Pepperdine, Abilene Christian, et al, have been careful to arrange
themselves to be independent, educational institutions except for when it comes
to wanting to pay their employees in tax free dollars. Bush and Burleson
arranged for that in compelling the IRS to recognize such schools as "integral
agencies of the church". That cinched it. Employees (e.g., basketball coaches,
math teachers, ad nauseum) now register as "ministers" and are paid in income
tax free dollars a "ministerial housing allowance" and can also opt out of
paying Social Security taxes.

But don't tell anybody...it's a secret!

Someday, however, maybe the story will be told!

Tue Jun 30, 11:29:00 AM EDT

-------------------

Patrick said...

You don't understand and are misstating the law of the ministerial housing
allowance and exception from Social Security. These exceptions are not as broad
as the "ministerial exception" for employment law purposes, though even that is
not as broad as the defendants are asserting here. The housing exception is
quite specifically applied only to licensed or ordained ministers who perform
sacerdotal functions. If schools are treating their basketball coaches and math
teachers in this manner, it is contrary to the law, not because of it. Perhaps
"it's a secret" because it's illegal Licensed or ordained ministers may exempt
themselves from Social Security taxes (it isn't automatic) but then they don't
get the benefits either

Tue Jun 30, 05:38:00 PM EDT

---------------------

Robert Baty said...

Patrick,

Your comments are further testimony as to why the story needs to be told!

Many religious groups today consider all members to be "ministers", so it is a
small matter to have them so recognized (i.e., ordained) by their respective
churches.

The basketball minister example is a real life case, which was brought before
the U.S. Tax Court and conceded by the IRS prior to trial; because of the ruling
Bush and Burleson got out of the IRS.

That's Revenue Ruling 70-549; the story of which has yet to be told.

The basketball minister, brought in from secular coaching, and being a member of
the church and a nice guy, got his church letter and even registered at the
court house as a minister.

He was in, as are all similarly situated employees at such private schools as
were mentioned.

Being a minister is fine with me. That's not the problem.

The problem is that these private schools are NOT "integral agencies of the
church"; not legally, not factually, not theologically according to their
founding principles and public proclamations.

That being the case, being paid to coach basketball and also being a minister
should not get the guy a tax free ticket.

But it does!

Why!

Because 70-549 is what is contrary to the facts, the law and the theology

It is time that story is told and brought into the public square for informed
discussion and, preferably, ACTION!

Wed Jul 01, 10:20:00 AM EDT

---------------------

Bob Ritter said...

Patrick, when you state that Robert is "misstating the law of the ministerial
housing allowance," it all depends upon the meaning of "the law." (Thanks to
Bill Clinton for teaching us to parse words.)

The parsonage allowance under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 107(2) has been granted to the
so-called ministers that Robert referred to (most likely under political
pressure). Sec. 107 ("the law") doesn't require "ministers of the gospel" to
perform sacerdotal functions, however IRS regs do. But here's the kicker. The
First Amendment prohibits laws "respecting an establishment of religion" --
which Sec. 107 clearly violates.

A group of concerned Americans (including one or more persons who have posted a
comment here) are in the final stages of drafting a complaint to challenge Sec.
107 in due course.

Wed Jul 01, 10:48:00 AM EDT

-----------------------

Anonymous said...

Section 1.1402(c)-5(b)(2)(iv) of the tax regulations provides that if a minister
is performing service for an organization which is operated as an integral
agency of a religious organization under the authority of a religious body
constituting a church or church denomination, then ALL SERVICE performed by the
minister in the control, conduct, and maintenance of such organization is in the
exercise of his ministry. See in this regard Rev. Rul. 70-549, 1970-2 C.B. 16,
plus the numerous private rulings issued to specific taxpayers. The issue often
arises with respect to ministers who serve as faculty members at Christian
colleges. If the faculty member is an ordained minister and if the church
college is an integral agency of a religious organization under the authority of
a religious body constituting a church or church denomination, then ALL of the
faculty member?s services are ?in the exercise of his ministry.? As a result,
the minister can be teaching math or coaching b asketball and he will in THAT
capacity be eligible to receive a tax-exempt housing allowance under section 107
of the Internal Revenue Code--the math teacher, basketball coach, etc. is NOT
required to perform conventional sacerdotal functions, such as the conduct of
worship or the administration of the Lord?s Supper or other sacraments.

The IRS has struggled with the language used in is own regulations and must make
fine distinctions between the Christian colleges that are operated under the
authority of a denomination and those that are not. This is just the sort of
inquiry into matters of church governance that the courts are forbidden to
engage in.

Wed Jul 01, 11:46:00 AM EDT

-------------------

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: w_w_c_l
Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009 11:35 PM

Subject: Re: Speaking of Carl Baugh!

Robert,

Alta Vista search results for "President Uzal":

> 7 hits, all linked to Carl Baugh

Alta Vista search results for "President Ozal":

> 2,100 hits.

Turgut Ozal, president of Turkey 1989-1993, died in office.

Carl Baugh made one trip to Ararat, 1990.

No mention by anyone else who has gone since then of having to clear it with
Baugh first.

What do you want to bet he never claimed
to have negotiated the 49-year lease until after Ozal was dead?

Seems like if he had anything in writing he would at least know how to spell the
guy's name...

Rick

--- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
>
> I have been unable to find any relevant information on
> Baugh's alleged claim.
>
> I have been in contact with one of his supporters, but
> she does not have any specific information regarding
> the claim.
>
> I've gone to Baugh's CEM site, but can't find an e-mail
> address to contact him directly.
>
> Anyone here got an e-mail address for Baugh?
>
> Does Baugh claim to hold a 49 year lease on Ararat?
> Did he simply "negotiate" a 49 year lease that was
> never signed?
>
> What is with making a big deal about whatever that was
> (i.e., listing it in Baugh's bio as if it were something
> to crow about) and then not providing any details??
>
> Sincerely,
> Robert Baty
>
> --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@> wrote:
> >
> > (I seem to be having some posting issues
> > as well, so I'm trying this a second time
> > from the website.-RLBaty)
> >
> > What is with Baugh's claims about having
> > negotiated a 49-year lease of Mt. Ararat
> > during the tenure of Turkish President Uzal?
> >
> > See:
> >
> >
http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid\
=21
> >
> > > Dr. Baugh is Co-Director of a
> > > research team (along with Dr.
> > > Don Shockey) searching for
> > > Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey.
> >
> > > He personally negotiated a 49-year
> > > lease of Mt. Ararat with the Turkish
> > > government during the administration
> > > of President Uzal.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Robert Baty

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: buckeyeelo
Date: Friday, July 3, 2009 5:48 AM

Subject: Re: History Joesph Story wacking Jefferson (after TJ had died of
course)

---Milton David Fisher wrote:

> It has been established by DNA
> testing that the father of Sally
> Hemmings' children was most
> probably a member of the Jefferson
> family. It was not established that
> it was Thomas Jefferson.
  http://www.monticello.org/plantation/hemingscontro/dnareport2.html

Yippeeeeeeee. It is very refreshing to run into someone who actually knows the
facts

Several years ago I took a vacation from churh state stuff and got interested in
the Sally/Jefferson myths. I spent several months and a decent amount of money
studying and purchasing historical documents, books, etc on the topic. I finally
posted all of that in a UseNet newgroup. It was of such quality, quanity and in
minute detailk that more then one person suggest I publish it as a book.

At any rate the facts are it is inconclusive who fathered the known children of
Sally. What was proven was the Thomas Woodson, the "red headed, white appearing
slave who so resembled Thomas Jefferson, the boy the vengeful newspaper reporter
wrote about that began this entire story about Sally and TJ, the boy who was
supposedly conceived in France was not related to any descendant, black or
white, slave or free of any male Jefferson family member.

There were two male children believed to be sons of Sally whose grave locations
were known, but only one of the current descendants of those those two were
willing to have the body exhumed to get a DNA sample.

That was done and the results were that the DNA proves that a descendant of the
Jefferson line was the father.  Immediately people scholars included began
screaming Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson.

The problem with that was, there were a number of potential suspects that
carried that Jefferson particular chromosome, some of whom were present at
Monticello during the possible window of conception. There is evidence that
Thomas Jefferson's brother was there, for sure at least one maybe, all of that
brother's male children, who were all old enough to father a child, were present
at times during that time period.

One family oral tradition that of the Woodson family has been shot down as being
false. One family oral tradition of another of Sally's male children claims it
was TJ. The Eston family oral tradition
claims it was the brother who fathered all of Sally's children who were
conceived in Virginia.

A fact is that the brother "partied" with the slaves played the fiddle and
danced with them on many occasions while he was visiting
Jefferson at Monticello. All of Sally's known children were conceived during the
time frame the brother was single. The brother's first wife had died and there
were several years that passed before the brother remarried Sally had no
children while the brother was married the first time nor after he remarried.
IIRC Eston was the last of her known children.

Thomas Jefferson had no surviving male offspring and the location of grave of
his son who died shortly after birth is unknown. Thus there was never a direct
TJ DNA sample. As the study shows a paternal uncle family line was used.

IIRC there were five children believed to be her kids, one was a daughter the
others who survived were males. Only descendants of Eston and Thomas Woodson
were tested. If Thomas Woodson was really one of her kids, and that is not known
for certain, someone other than a Jefferson was responsible for that.

There were black males, slaves, some maybe free who probably had been fatherd by
some Jefferson. Jefferson's father or his uncles, etc. Some of Sally's kind were
suppose to be able to pass as white while others were quite blk. There were also
a number of Jefferson relatives living in Virginia at the time as well as some
who lived near Monticello at the time including his brother and his brothers
sons.

The most reasonable conclusion from all of the evidence one can arrive at is
that who fathered any of Sally's kids is inconclusive but the evidence is
leaning towards the brother as having fathered one or more of her kids.

----------------------------------
----------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.bellecoc.com/informerv1825.pdf
http://www.bellecoc.com/informerv1826.pdf
http://www.bellecoc.com/informerv1827.pdf
 
http://www.bellecoc.com/062109.pdf
http://www.bellecoc.com/070509.pdf
 
jdm

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I would like to welcome Goldsmith to the list:

> July 6, 2009
> 7:24 pm
> Goldsmith@...
> Joined group via web

Sincerely,
Robert Baty



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: PIASAN@...
Date: Thursday, July 9, 2009 5:09 PM

Subject: Baugh's "museum"!

On another list, it was written:

> I stopped by Carl Baughs "creation"
> museum to have a look around.

> One of the staff came up and talked
> to me for a few minutes and when I
> told them I was a vertebrate
> paleontologist, I was firmly, yet
> politely, asked to leave.

I would have to wonder.

If Baugh has such good evidence, why would a vertebrate paleontologist be so
unwelcome?

It would seem to me that Baugh would be EAGER to have his "strong" evidence
examined by an expert in the field.

Pi

---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I get various religious "periodicals" in my email, and I recently received "A
Review of Tom Roberts' Book: 'The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth' (1
Timothy 3:15)" by Tim Haile.

http://www.biblebanner.com/articles/general/roberts.pdf

I casually glanced through the article, but for some odd unknown reason this
particular paragraph jumped out to my attention:

| "Noah's Other Boat"
|
| By page 34 of brother Roberts' book he had already abused
| some Bible passages, ignored other pertinent passages,
| and totally misrepresented his opponents. These errors
| surprised me about Tom, but they did not prepare me for
| what I was to read on pages 34 and 35 of his book. He
| attempts to defend human religious societies on the basis
| that Noah may have built "other boats" for "pleasure or
| for livlihood." Brother Roberts sounds like a sectarian
| trying to defend instrumental music in worship, or an
| institutionalist trying to defend the sponsoring church
| arrangement and church sponsored recreation. His point is
| that God's specific instruction for Noah to build an ark
| to the saving of his house did not prevent him from
| building other arks. After spending some time
| constructing his argument (from evidence found only in
| the fertile recesses of his overactive imagination, not
| from the Bible), he is then forced to admit, "I don't
| know that Noah had another boat." Brother Roberts finally
| states the truth, and this truth presents a genuine
| problem for him. It is a tacit admission that his
| argument is constructed upon pure conjecture. He has no
| proof of his major premise, yet he boldly asserts
| conclusions from that premise. In other words, he just
| makes things up and assumes them to be analogous to what
| he and others of the GOT group are doing in their
| religious exercises. It appears that in his zeal to
| defend GOT, brother Roberts forgot the principle of the
| silence of the Scriptures (Heb. 7:11-14; Acts 15:24). He
| also forgot about the sin of presumption (Psa. 19:13),
| and of the importance of speaking as the oracles of God
| (1 Pet. 4:11; Isa. 8:20).

Huh??? Is this Tim Haile guy arguing that Noah would have been committing a sin
to have built any boat during his life besides having built the ark, on the
basis of some "principle" about the "silence of the Scriptures"?

So I wrote to Tim, and the exchange so far follows below.

- Todd Greene

================================================================

Hi Tim,

I was just glancing through your "A Review of Tom Roberts' Book", and I'm
curious about something. It seems like you are promoting the idea that if Noah
ever built a boat of any kind besides the ark during his life then he would have
been committing a sin. Did I read that correctly? Do you think that?

- Todd Greene

------------------------------------------------

No, my point was that the Bible SAYS NOTHING about Noah building other arks. Any
argument that is based upon hypothetical arks or "boats" is an argument from the
silence of the Scriptures.

Tim Haile

------------------------------------------------

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the clarification. However, since you apparently agree that Noah
would NOT have been committing a sin by having built a boat of any kind besides
the ark, then it is a point of logic that Tom was addressing, and whether or not
the Bible actually does or does not say anything about Noah having built or not
built any other boats is irrelevant to the logical point (the point that it
would been a sin for Noah to have built any boats besides the ark), because you
agree that it would not have been a sin for Noah to have done so (whether or not
he actually did, and whether or not the Bible says a single word about it).

The Bible is not the be-all and end-all of logical reasoning used in the proper
reasoning of correct argumentation, simply because the Bible is not an academic
textbook about correct logical reasoning (indeed, the Bible does not even
address the subject as such in any way). There are a great many facts about
logical reasoning and about the physical world that are what they are and that
we know the truth about even though the Bible is completely silent about them.
For example, it is the truth that the earth orbits the sun, and that plants
generate their "food" through a chemical biological process of photosynthesis
using sunlight, and that if P implies Q and P is true then Q is true, and all
these things are true EVEN THOUGH THE BIBLE IS SILENT ABOUT THEM.

Therefore, it seems to me that it is precisely you who is basing his whole
argument on exactly the silence of the Bible - because it seems to me that it is
you who is arguing that if the Bible is silent about something then nothing can
be said about it even though these other things (such as points of logic) are
true.

I guess the question I should ask you, or that others should ask you, or that
you should ask yourself (and perhaps specifically address in a future article)
is this question: Can a correct argument be made on the basis of a correct
logical point, or on the basis of a correct factual point, or both, even though
the Bible itself happens to be silent about the logical point or factual point
being used?

- Todd Greene

I would again like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within
the churches of Christ and its young-earth creation-science movement.

To date, no bonafide young-earth creation-science promoter has dared to
repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.

I would also then like to give my "Goliath of GRAS" argument for any who may
want to "come out" in response to its call and take up the public discussion as
to the argument's logical validity (i.e., if its premises are true the
conclusion will follow as true).

In order to respond to the "call", one need only utilize the "post" and/or
"reply" features of this list, membership not being necessary to post, or simply
address an e-mail to:

> Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com .

A debate between Todd S. Greene and Jerry D. McDonald, relating to the soundness
of the argument, has begun.

See below for proposition details and the
following link for additional information as the debate develops:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/YoungEarthCreationism/

Jerry D. McDonald has submitted his first affirmative and we are waiting for
Todd S. Greene's first rebuttal.

Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the
comments from that leading light amongst the young-earth creation-science
movement within the churches of Christ:

-------------------------------------------

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

THE YOUNG EARTH

(excerpts)

"(T)he most serious area of conflict between the biblical account and the
evolutionary scenario is the chronological framework of history

> in other words,
> the age of the Earth.

While a young Earth/Universe presents no problem for a creationist, it is the
death knell to each variety of the evolutionary model.

A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates that the
Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years ago.

Much of the controversy today between creationists and evolutionists revolves
around the age of the Earth.

A large part of that controversy centers around the fact that there is no
compromise that will permit the old-Earth/young-Earth scenarios to coexist; the
gulf separating the biblical and
evolutionary views on the topic of the age of the Earth is just too large.

(W)e must 'query if vast time is indeed available.'

That is our purpose here.

There is ample scientific evidence to indicate that such time is not available,
and that the Earth is relatively young, not
extremely old.

That evidence needs to be examined and considered...

There is good scientific evidence that the Earth...has an age of only a few
thousand years, just as the Bible plainly indicates."

(end excerpt)

------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------

It is undisputed, as the above shows, that some folks believe that

> the Bible teaches

that

> "nothing is more than a few
> thousand years old".

The relevant question, when it comes to the fundamental young-earth
creation-science position on that point is whether or not the real world
evidence really does support that interpretation or if that interpretation is
subject to falsification based on the real world evidence.

I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of GRAS")
proposing that the real world interpretation of the text commonly associated
with the young-earth creation-science movement (i.e., "nothing is more than a
few thousand years old") is subject to falsification with reference to the real
world evidence.

Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

Major premise:

> If God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by
> some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand
> years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a few
> thousand years, then the
> interpretation of the text by
> some is wrong.

Minor premise:

> God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by
> some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand
> years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a few
> thousan d years.

Conclusion:

> The interpretation of the text
> by some is wrong.

You are welcome to try your hand at impeaching the validity of the argument, or
simply accept it for what it is...a simple,
logically valid statement of the real world falsification test for the
fundamental real world claim commonly associated with
the young-earth creation-science movement.

It is further proposed that the only disputed aspect of the above argument is,
in the context of the popular young-earth
creation-science movement, the "evidence of age".

In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the record
discussion is, as noted above, presently ongoing between Todd S. Greene and
Jerry D. McDonald with the following propositions for discussion:

Proposition # 1:

> The scientific evidence shows that
> the earth has NOT been in existence
> for more than ten thousand (10,000)
> years.

>> Affirm: Jerry D. McDonald
>> Deny: Todd S. Greene

Proposition #2:

> The scientific evidence shows that
> the earth has been in existence
> more than one hundred thousand
> (100,000) years.

> Affirm: Todd S. Greene
> Deny: Jerry D. McDonald

Proposition #3:

> The scientific evidence shows that
> the universe has NOT been in
> existence for more than ten
> thousand (10,000) years.

>> Affirm: Jerry D. McDonald
>> Deny: Todd S. Greene

Proposition #4:

> The scientific evidence shows that
> the universe has been in existence
> more than one hundred thousand
> (100,000) years.

>> Affirm: Todd S. Greene
>> Deny: Jerry D. McDonald

Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated have themselves
retreated into the UNscientific position
summarized as follows:

> I've got my interpretation
> of the text regarding the
> real world and that trumps
> any real world evidence
> to the contrary.

The above position effectively concedes that young-earth creation-science cannot
stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence
falsifies the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is
more than a few thousand years old".

That is a good thing to know.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE.
 
Hi Jerry, thanks for the recognition and invitation to continue the debate, I
hope you will do better than you did with your first attempt.
 
At your suggestion I have included "all this in my second affirmative", so now
we will see if you are honourable and willing to answer it.

You have stated, "single people can commit adultery", and when asked for
Scripture that so teaches, you flew to Matthew 5:28 - two things wrong: 1. You
assume they are single, even though the word "adultery" is used - which
necessitates a marriage is involved - it's impossible for spouseless people to
"commit adultery". 2. Mental adultery is not considered in the issue. What is
more, since the word "adultery" is used, they are therefore subject to the
exception for divorce Jesus gave. Will you please explain how and why they can
be divorced from a spouse that never existed???? If they can "commit adultery",
they have a spouse, or are involved with the spouse of an other. You think you
know the situation, please explain it!!!!
 
I am now affirming that every person Scripturally divorced is as free of
marriage as it's possible to be, and is in the same state as never married -
Scriptural divorce negates the marriage. Both are equally no longer bound, they
become "loosed". And then if they remarry, do so "without sin" 1Corinthians
7:27-28. Now answer the question.
 
Now you have the task to show me wrong - you can't do it.

God does not accept divorce "except it be for fornication" - which is adultery -
it's just that simple.

 
-- Original Message -----

From: Jerry McDonald
To: Max Burgin
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 8:35 AM
Subject: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Question
 
Max, I am not going to get into question and answering with you.  If you want
to finish the debate include all this in your second affirmative.  My first
rebuttal has been submitted for some time now.  So you can submit your second
affirmative at any time.  Other than that don't waste my time.  I don't want to
be bothered with you other than the debate.
jdm


--- On Fri, 7/10/09, Max Burgin <mburgin@...> wrote:
 
From: Max Burgin <mburgin@...>
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Question
To: "Jerry McDonald" <jerry@...>
Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 3:34 PM
 
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT - all adultery is fornication, but not all fornicatiion
is adultery. That distinction is at the core of the issue. M.B.

----- Original Message -----

From: Max Burgin
To: Jerry McDonald
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Question
 
Your error is calling fornication, adultery - fornication does not require
marriage, adultery does. It's impossible for spouseless people to commit
adultery.
 
- Original Message -----

From: Jerry McDonald
To: Max Burgin
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:02 AM
Subject: {Disarmed} Re: Question
 
I have already told you that adultery does not necessitate a marriage.  Two
single people can committ adultery.  I made arguments to the effect and you
simply ignored them as though they were never made.  You are simply wasting time
on this.  My answer will always be the same. The guilty party is not married to
anyone, he is not committing adultery against his first wife.  If he marries the
woman he marries will be the woman he will be committing adultery with because
God does not authorize the marriage.  I don't understand why you keep asking me
this question.  Have I not made myself clear enough on it?

jdm
 

--- On Fri, 7/10/09, Max Burgin <mburgin@...> wrote:

 
From: Max Burgin <mburgin@...>
Subject: Re: Question
To: "Jerry McDonald" <jerry@...>
Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 2:04 PM
 
No, just wondering how and why you are convinced it's possible. Can you "give an
answer"? M.B.

----- Original Message -----

From: Jerry McDonald
To: Max Burgin
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: Question
 
Is this your second affirmative?

jdm

 
SCRIPTURAL DIVORCE AND ADULTERY.

Is it possible for Scriptural divorce to result in adultery?
The first thing to determine is, if divorce can ever be Scriptural. Malachi 2:16
is often quoted as a simple and final statement, which says "God hates divorce".
While there is no dispute about that, for it is always the direct result of sin,
and is often the sin itself. However this is not a consideration of the reason
for divorce; apart from the exception for divorce, given by Jesus in Matthew
5:32 and 19:9, and sanctioned by God, which is said to be, "exception for
fornication", which is adultery.

Such a divorce is Scriptural. But there is some confusion as to whether it
applies equally to both parties, or whether the result is a half marriage, where
only one party may remarry.

QUESTION:

If, after a Scriptural divorce, the "guilty party" is bound to celibacy, to
avoid further adultery, with or without a further marriage. But it's not
necessary for him to be divorced. If he remarries, who does he commit adultery
against? Which marriage does he adulterate?  The former spouse he no longer has,
who all agree she can remarry without adultery, since she is "loosed", but he
remains bound! If that is not a half marriage, I don't know what is, where one
commits adultery but the other doesn't.

Where there is no marriage involved, there is no such thing as adultery.

No marriage is involved after Scriptural divorce.

Let someone answer the question with spouseless people in mind, instead of on
the basis of innocence or guilt.
There is no concern about who is a child of God. That is an entirely different
issue.

Does God condone a divorce that can result in adultery?
Show me Scripture to prove the position.

Max Burgin.
Email: mburgin@...
 
McDonald's Second Rebuttal

---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------

I would like to welcome Goldsmith, from his WhosTheCultist YAHOO! discussion
list, to the Maury_and_Baty list:

> July 6, 2009
> 7:24 pm
> Goldsmith...@...
>
> Joined Maury_and_Baty
> group via web

Previously, Goldsmith indicated he was not inclined to participate in an open
forum such as this.  Such may be his intentions still.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/16620

Maury_and_Baty
Message #16620

From: Robert Baty
Date: March 14, 2009

Subject: Re: Logic 101 questions remain unanswered by Goldsmith!

(excerpts)

I'm certainly no match for the spamming techniques, including false and
misleading claims, utilized by Goldsmith who has demonstrated a lack of
willingness to requite my favors, engage in a good faith discussion of
fundamental matters, or answer the questions which would form the basis for a
legitimate discussion of his problems.

The questions remain unanaswered by Goldsmith:

Outstanding Question #1:

Is the following "Goliath is Gibberish" argument, PROPOSED BY GOLDSMITH,
logically "valid":

> Major Premise:

>> If Robert Baty's "Goliath of GRAS"
>> says that it is a logically valid modus
>> ponens form argument, and is
>> interpreted by Robert to be one,
>> and there is empirical evidence
>> stating that it is gibberish, then
>> the interpretation of Robert is
>> wrong and he misses his puppy.

> Minor Premise:

>> Robert Baty's "Goliath of GRAS"
>> says that it is a logically valid modus
>> ponens form argument, and is
>> interpreted by Robert to be one,
>> and there is empirical evidence
>> stating that it is gibberish.

> Conclusion:

>> The interpretation of Robert
>> is wrong and he misses his puppy.

Answers:

>>> Robert Baty-Yes!
>>> Goldsmith-???

Outstanding Question #2:

Is the following "Goliath of GRAS" argument, proposed by Baty, logically
"valid":

> Major premise:

>> If God's word (the text) says
>> everything began over a period
>> of six days, is interpreted by
>> some to mean it was six 24-hour
>> days occurring a few thousand
>> years ago, and there is empirical
>> evidence that some thing is
>> actually much older than a few
>> thousand years, then the
>> interpretation of the text by
>> some is wrong.

> Minor premise:

>> God's word (the text) says
>> everything began over a period
>> of six days, is interpreted by
>> some to mean it was six 24-hour
>> days occurring a few thousand
>> years ago, and there is empirical
>> evidence that some thing is
>> actually much older than a few
>> thousand years.

> Conclusion:

>> The interpretation of the text
>> by some is wrong.

Answers:

>>> Robert Baty-Yes!
>>> Goldsmith-???

As Goldsmith himself wrote to the Maury_and_Baty list, the definition of a
logically valid argument is:

> "if its premises are true the
> conclusion will follow as true".

My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

So, the exchange with Goldsmith, according to Goldsmith, is coming to an end
with another victory to be recorded for my "Goliath of GRAS".

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

And in response thereto, Goldsmith has left us:

----------------------------------------

From: Yahoo!Groups Notification
To: Maury_and_Baty-owner@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, July 12, 2009 4:10 PM

Subject: Unsubscription by Maury_and_Baty member

(excerpts)

Hello,

This is an automated email message to let you know that

> goldsmith...@....com

unsubscribed from your Maury_and_Baty
group.

Regards,
Yahoo! Groups Customer Care

------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------

My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

Still unbeaten!

Still no "David"!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty



-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:51 PM
To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [M & B] Where we left Goldsmith!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/16620

Maury_and_Baty
Message #16620

From: Robert Baty
Date: March 14, 2009

Subject: Re: Logic 101 questions remain unanswered by Goldsmith!

(excerpts)

I'm certainly no match for the spamming techniques, including false and
misleading claims, utilized by Goldsmith who has demonstrated a lack of
willingness to requite my favors, engage in a good faith discussion of
fundamental matters, or answer the questions which would form the basis for a
legitimate discussion of his problems.

The questions remain unanaswered by Goldsmith:

Outstanding Question #1:

Is the following "Goliath is Gibberish" argument, PROPOSED BY GOLDSMITH,
logically "valid":

> Major Premise:

>> If Robert Baty's "Goliath of GRAS"
>> says that it is a logically valid modus
>> ponens form argument, and is
>> interpreted by Robert to be one,
>> and there is empirical evidence
>> stating that it is gibberish, then
>> the interpretation of Robert is
>> wrong and he misses his puppy.

> Minor Premise:

>> Robert Baty's "Goliath of GRAS"
>> says that it is a logically valid modus
>> ponens form argument, and is
>> interpreted by Robert to be one,
>> and there is empirical evidence
>> stating that it is gibberish.

> Conclusion:

>> The interpretation of Robert
>> is wrong and he misses his puppy.

Answers:

>>> Robert Baty-Yes!
>>> Goldsmith-???

Outstanding Question #2:

Is the following "Goliath of GRAS" argument, proposed by Baty, logically
"valid":

> Major premise:

>> If God's word (the text) says
>> everything began over a period
>> of six days, is interpreted by
>> some to mean it was six 24-hour
>> days occurring a few thousand
>> years ago, and there is empirical
>> evidence that some thing is
>> actually much older than a few
>> thousand years, then the
>> interpretation of the text by
>> some is wrong.

> Minor premise:

>> God's word (the text) says
>> everything began over a period
>> of six days, is interpreted by
>> some to mean it was six 24-hour
>> days occurring a few thousand
>> years ago, and there is empirical
>> evidence that some thing is
>> actually much older than a few
>> thousand years.

> Conclusion:

>> The interpretation of the text
>> by some is wrong.

Answers:

>>> Robert Baty-Yes!
>>> Goldsmith-???

As Goldsmith himself wrote to the Maury_and_Baty list, the definition of a
logically valid argument is:

> "if its premises are true the
> conclusion will follow as true".

My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

So, the exchange with Goldsmith, according to Goldsmith, is coming to an end
with another victory to be recorded for my "Goliath of GRAS".

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

---------------------------------------------

From: Todd S. Greene
Date: Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:52 PM

Subject: Re: Do You Have Any Idea When You Will Get Your First Rebuttal
Finished, Todd?

Jerry D. McDonald wrote:

> Todd, do you have any idea when
> you will get your first rebuttal
> finished.

> You have had my first affirmative
> since February 27th and it is July
> 11th.

> Are you any closer to finishing it?

> In Christ Jesus
> Jerry McDonald

> PS Just asking for information

At the moment, no, I don't.

- Todd Greene

--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

July 12, 2009

DYER, Ark. - Evangelist Tony Alamo once said God never wanted his ministry to be
poor, but money raised by his followers only seems to go his way.

As Alamo, 74, faces accusations he took five preteen girls across state lines
for sex, he presides over a multimillion-dollar empire held in his followers'
names. Trucking companies, residential property and a number of questionable
ventures fund the work of his 100 to 200 acolytes.

> "A substantial amount of income
> is generated that's utilized for the
> organization, all of which is controlled
> by Mr. Alamo,"

FBI agent Randall Harris testified at an October bond hearing.

> "However ... none of that property
> ever shows legally as being in his
> name."

Government agencies show Alamo built his fortune on the backs of his followers,
setting them up in commercial operations rather than rely on donations like
traditional ministries.

By the 1980s, the Labor Department said Alamo had to pay his followers at least
minimum wage; the IRS later laid claim to millions of dollars in taxes.

At the end of a four-year prison term for tax evasion in 1998 — after the
government seized assets and courts rejected his charity status — Alamo paid
$250,000 to cover a fine and penalties.

> "How in the world could Mr. Alamo
> come up with a quarter of a million
> dollars ... when the entire time he
> hasn't been able to work, he hasn't
> held a job other than what he may
> have been employed in inside a
> federal penitentiary?"

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kyra Jenner asked during Alamo's bond hearing last
October.

'God wants his children to go first-class'

At its height, Alamo's ministry owned gas stations, a hog farm, grocery store,
restaurant and concert venue in Alma, a town near Dyer.

Alamo's Nashville, Tenn., clothing store catered to celebrities who bought
elaborately decorated jean jackets. His line also carried sharkskin boots,
leopard-skin jackets and sequined gowns popular with musicians at the Grand Ole
Opry, which Alamo occasionally haunted in the 1980s.

His wife Susan once arrived for an interview wearing a floor-length
red-and-white dress and lynx jacket.

> "God wants his children to go
> first-class,"

she once said.

But life at the Alamo compound could be paradise or hell, depending on who you
ask.

Alamo and his wife enjoyed a heart-shaped pool near a mansion in Dyer, but
federal agents said they found followers' sleeping bags in a meeting room.

Marshals said some workers earned $5 a day, with shifts lasting as long as 20
hours.

In the latest case, prosecutors allege girls under age 18 were taken across
state lines from the current compound in Foulke and raped or sexually abused
between 1994 and 2005.

A trial starts this week.

If convicted, Alamo faces 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each of 10
counts.

Whether all the business ventures linked to Alamo are legal isn't known.

Peter N. Georgiades, a Pittsburgh lawyer who sued Alamo on behalf of
ex-followers in the 1990s, said ministry workers accepted donations of food near
its expiration dates, wiped off the dates and resold items to grocers

> "It's plain, flat-out fraud,"

the lawyer said.

Mary Coker, who helped ex-followers contact federal agents before a recent raid,
said the ministry has been selling outdated government-donated food since it
moved to Fouke in the 1990s.


Flea market raid

In March 2007, FBI agents arrested Leslie Ray "Buster" White at the flea market
he ran in Texarkana, Texas, and seized $100,000 after charging him with selling
counterfeit goods including CDs, shoes and handbags. White, who has identified
himself as an associate pastor at Alamo's church, pleaded guilty to trafficking
and was initially sentenced to 180 days of house arrest.

On June 30, he was ordered into jail for eight weekends after health inspectors
and the FBI said they found copycat designer labels and outdated food,
over-the-counter drugs and cosmetics at the flea market.

Investigators say invoices listed Action Distributors and SJ Distribution as
sellers of the goods. Court documents and testimony during Alamo's criminal
detention hearing in October said both companies are owned by Tony Alamo
Christian Ministries members.

White denounced his association with Alamo and the ministry in December, but his
lawyer won't say whether he is cooperating with the government.

No estimate of net worth

Also in 2007, FBI agents questioned Thomas Scarcello, who helped incorporate an
Alamo-linked charity at Fort Smith, after he was found in a warehouse filled
with Tempur-Pedic mattresses intended for Hurricane Katrina victims.

A lawsuit says $7 million worth of donated mattresses were offered for sale from
trucks and elsewhere until a federal magistrate stopped their sale.

In a deposition, Scarcello denied Alamo had any connection with the businesses,
then claimed his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination when
asked about his business finances or where he kept his records.

Ernest Peia, a wholesaler, testified in a deposition that he bought clothes,
food and candies from Scarcello. Among businesses operated by the Tony and Susan
Alamo Foundation, Arkansas records show, are the Alamo Candy Co. and Wholesale
Candy.

Two Fort Smith trucking companies are registered in followers' names: Action
Distributors and Advantage Food Group. Federal transportation records show those
companies logged more than 1.1 million miles in 2006 and 2007 The FBI said those
companies likely have as many as 30 tractor-trailers

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks Alamo's church as a hate group,
said it had no estimate on its net worth.

Even the FBI acknowledged in court that it has trouble untangling a web of
related businesses, though there's no question about who is in charge.

> "It's my understanding from the
> interviews we've conducted that
> hardly a penny is spent without
> ultimately (Alamo's) authorization,"

Harris said at Alamo's hearing last fall.

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Planned Outage: July 14, 15, and 16, 2009

This week (July 14, 15, and 16), we’ll be performing maintenance on the
remaining 75% of Yahoo! Groups that were not affected by last Wednesday’s
outage.

This maintenance will take place over a three-day period (July 14, 15, and 16),
as we’ll be working on 25% of Yahoo! Groups at a time.

This means you may be able to access some of your groups, but not all, during
the outages.

For the affected groups, mail will be delayed, but will return to normal once
the outage is complete.

All of the outages will take place at 3pm PT

(10pm UTC/GMT-to determine what time the outage will take place in your
neighborhood, please visit this link:

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html )

on the 14th, 15th, and 16th.

While we know that outages sometimes seem to come at exactly the wrong time, we
again hope to have these next three done within 2 hours.

Once the maintenance has been completed, we’ll update this post.

Thanks for your patience!

Melissa Daniels
Yahoo! Community Manager

-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here are the links for the bulletin and sermon for this past week.
 
http://www.bellecoc.com/informerv1828.pdf
 
http://www.bellecoc.com/071209.pdf
 
Also here is a link to a written debate on the resurrection I am in on the
resurrection with Spencer Lo.
 
http://www.challenge2.org/coverres.pdf
 
In Christ Jesus
Jerry McDonald

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A Discussion of Freedom of Religion And Freedom From Religion

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/freefrom.htm

------------------------------------
------------------------------------




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Goldsmith would be welcome to join this group and discuss the topics of this
group, or such topics of interest to him.

Goldsmith would be welcome to discuss the topics of this group, or of his
choosing, as a nonmember.  Since non-members can post, he need only to utilize
the "post" or "reply" features or simply address an e-mail to:

Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

(David Heflin is scheduled to receive his M.A. in Religion; Theology & Ethics at
the end of this month.  In conjunction therewith, I sent him the following
inquiry via the RM-Bible list.-RLBaty)

-----------------------------------------

From: Robert Baty
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 3:20 PM
To: rm-bible@yahoogroups.com

Subject: M.A. in Religion: Theology & Ethics questions!

(excerpts)

I would like to get your "expert opinion".

What "ethical" considerations might be involved in considering whether or not a
private institution, designed as a matter of fact, law, and theology to be
independent of the church (i.e., NOT an "integral agency" of the church) should
desire and petition the federal government to be treated as having an "integral
agency" relationship to the church in order that its basketball minister and
other similarly situated employees can claim tax free benefits?

If successful, what "ethical" considerations might be involved in exploiting the
recognition?

FWIW, I would note that one of your fellow, more advanced, scholarly types put
it this way when asked to comment thereon:

> May 11, 2000

> (I)t is interesting that the basic
> nature of the case is that the
> Churches were saying

>> "We say we believe one thing,
>> but actually we do something
>> else."

> David E. Harrell
> Breeden Eminent Scholar
> in the Humanities
> Auburn University
> History Department
> 2227 Haley Center
> Auburn University, AL 36849-5207

David, if Harrell's opinion is shared by you, what does your training in
"ethics" tell us about the situation described above; theoreticaly speaking, of
course?

If you don't share Harrell's indicated position on the matter at hand, please
explain.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------

So far there has been no reply!

Meanwhile, my associates continue to work at perfecting the proposed IRC 107
suit.  Hopefully that work will progress speedily and the suit can be filed
sooner rather than later!

Sincerely
Robert Baty



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

(Some interesting play with numbers.-RLBaty)

-----------Forwarded Message--------------

From: wiles...@...com
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:35 AM

Subject: Re: Demography of North American churches

(excerpts)

For American Churches of Christ, 46% of the members are members of the roughly
1500 congregations of 200 or more, while the other 54% belong to the other
10,600 congregations.

About 1/4 of us are in congregations of 400 or more.

To assess what that means for aspiring ministers, let's make the following
assumptions:

--The average preacher will work with 8 different congregations during his
career.

--The top 10% of preachers (talent-wise) will rotate through the top 5% of
congregations (membership-wise), leaving the other 95% of the pulpits to be
filled by the rest of us.

--The pool of aspiring pulpit preachers is randomly distributed throughout the
brotherhood.

--The pool of available pulpits is randomly distributed. (Probably not true.  I
suspect an inverse correlation between congregation size and pulpit turnover,
but since I don't have enough hard data to adjust properly, we'll go with what
we have.)

If these assumptions are valid, this means that:

--48% of career pulpit preachers will NEVER preach full-time for a congregation
with more than 200 members, and another 31% will only do so once.

--At least 25% of the pool of future preachers are, right now, members of a
congregation that is larger than any church they will ever preach for.

--24% of church members will never hear a preacher outside the top 10% of the
talent pool on a regular basis.

What these numbers mean for ministerial education at Church of Christ-affiliated
colleges I'll leave for better minds than mine.

Ben Wiles
Minister, Pleasant Grove Church of Christ
Todd County, KY

"A statistician is somebody who is good with numbers but lacks the people skills
to make it as an accountant."

-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------

A new discussion list has been set up to go along with my "One Nation Under God"
website.  You don't have to join to post.  Here is the link:
 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/onenationundrgod/
 
jdm

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]